[LINK] Tesla

[Roger Clarke]

> On Sunday, 17 March 2019 15:17:20 AEDT Stephen Loosley wrote:
>> The Tesla Team 1 March, 2019
>> https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/blog/upgrading-autopilot-and-full-self-driving-capability
>> [...]
>> Full Self-Driving capability includes Navigate on Autopilot, Advanced Summon, Auto Lane Change, Autopark and, later this year, will recognize and respond to traffic lights.

On 17/3/19 4:53 pm, David wrote:
> So does "full self driving" mean I can sit on the back set and read a book?  I suspect that phrase is just marketing hyperbole, but the mere possibility makes me feel "incredibly excited".

It means whatever the reader wants it to mean.  The lawyers will have 
ensured that there are just enough weasel-words just close enough to the 
marketing fluff that accusations of constructive misrepresentation will 
fail, i.e. it's officially vacuous and non-credible.


> Does anyone know how Australian legislation regards self-driving vehicles?  How would criminal and/or civil responsibility be partitioned between a human "driver" and their vehicle in the event of an accident?
> Does an injured party have any _practical_ recourse against whatever legal entities (manufacturer, subcontractors, service agents, government type approval agencies, etc.) are associated with the vehicle?  Or would the argument get mired in proprietary algorithms?
> You could even imagine a dispute between the manufacturer and a local-government authority about whether a road was suitable for driverless vehicle operation.
 > But I suppose we'll see another example of the socialisation of 
corporate liability, this time via compulsory third-party insurance.

The third para. of s.4.2 of this paper says:
http://rogerclarke.com/EC/AIR.html#LS
 >In relation to autonomous motor vehicles, a number of jurisdictions 
have enacted laws. See Palmerini et al. (2014, pp.36-73), Holder et al. 
(2016), DMV-CA (2018), Vellinga (2017), which reviews laws in the USA at 
federal level, California, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, and 
Maschmedt & Searle (2018), which reviews laws in three States of 
Australia. Such initiatives have generally had a strong focus on 
economic motivations, the stimulation and facilitation of innovation, 
exemptions from some existing regulation, and limited new regulation or 
even guidance. One approach to regulation is to leverage off natural 
processes. For example, Schellekens (2015) argued that a requirement of 
obligatory insurance was a sufficient means for regulating liability for 
harm arising from self-driving cars.

So check Maschmedt & Searle (2018) at:
 >https://www.kwm.com/en/au/knowledge/insights/driverless-vehicle-trial-legislation-nsw-vic-sa-20180227

(I've just finalised and submitted those three papers - and thanks to 
the couple of people who offered comments!  I haven't gone into the 
specific question any further than the above - but my cynicism is at 
exactly the same level as David L.'s


-- 
Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA 

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University